chad incels misogyny

Incel: The only winner in the upcoming sexual revolution will be Chad

The domain is down, at least for now, but the regulars are still unhappily chatting away on the backup domain And they still have stories to tell one another about men, women, and Chad.

One inventive historian of the future called Iamnothere000 presents his vision of the sexual revolution he believes is already underway — one that will knock women down a peg or two.

“The sexual revolution,” he begins,

will eventually lead to a society where most women will only be interested in dating the top % of men. They will have no need to settle for less attractive men since they can provide for themselves via work/welfarestate/onlyfans.

I’m pretty sure that income from onlyfans — which looms so large in the incel imagination — accounts for roughly 0.000000001 percent of total GDP.

The big winner of this scenario is obviously Chad. He can pick and choose from an unlimited buffet of women without the need to invest any emotional or financial resources himself. Women chase him, he does not have to woo them. This means he does not have to respect or value them in any way. They are utterly replaceable to him.

Lucky Chad, able to be the asshole that incels only aspire to be

This is, if you think about it, a horrible situation for women: They only have a tiny chance to be with a Chad (because many women want him), and only during the short timeframe while they are in their prime.

Most incels seem to think that a woman’s “prime” only lasts from her late teen years until her mid twenties. Better move fast, ladies!

Women can be quite vicious towards each other so it will be a horrible competition.


And even if they win the Chads attention, they will have to please him constantly, no matter how he treats the women. If she displeases, annoys or bores the Chad, she will just be replaced. A current example would be Leonardo DiCaprio, who never has a girlfriend older than 25 years of age. Even the formation of harems will not mitigate the competition, because the Women/Chad ration is so steep.

Too many women, not enough Chads.

This may sound like an inversion of the current male-female dating dynamics, where men chase women and women select men. But it is even worse: The competition for Chad will be much fiercer since women are unwilling to settle for anything less (and still be happy). Also, Chad can beat the shit out of his women if he so pleases.

Oh that’s lovely.

Additionally, such a sexual liberated era will forever cement the animal/whore-status of women.

The what/what status of women?

No objective observer (historians for example) male or female will be able to genuinely respect women when they use their new found sexual freedom to collectively go for the men who are physically most attractive while disregarding (or at least neglecting) any other qualities a man could have. Women choose partners like animals do, for superficial traits alone.

I’m sure most animals are better judges of character than your typical jncel. And given the poison incels spew online about women, human women have very good reasons for avoiding you guys.

You may think that (sub 9) men are the biggest losers of this new era. The vast majority of them will not be able to find a partner and is therefore condemned to a live of inceldom. But, at least for me, the worst thing about being Incel is the sheer abnormality of it. WTF is wrong with me when I, despite all my achievement, cannot land a single date while my abusive neighbor can have one gf after another that he can drag over the floor by a fistful of hair?

Why are you so jealous of men who beat women? This is the second time it’s come up in this brief manifesto.

If however inceldom were so common and public that it is no longer considered abnormal, this feeling of wrongness would be mitigated.

There are a lot of people out there not having sex — especially in this pandemic. But the overwhelming majority of them would never claim the incel tag for themselves because it’s associated (and rightly so) with violent misogyny and toxic self-hate. That’s what makes you guys undateable, not the exact shape of your chin or the size of your wrists.

With good copes I could live quit content like this. Not happy, but content.

Stop acting like creeps and people will stop treating you like creeps.

I also think that, emotionally speaking, women need male attention much more than the opposite. Almost all men can (and have to) get used to long stretches without being in any form desirable to women. Virtually all Women however are always somehow desired/liked by men.

Not true, as countless incel discussions about the undesirability of old — over 25 — women and so-called “landwhales.”

They cannot cope with being undesirable because they never had to. On an emotional level: A Women needs a strong man to hold/support her. A man wants a tender woman who he can hold/support.

Well, that’s a pretty crude (and retrograde, and wrong) summing up what draws people together.

So the divide between the genders will hit women much harder then men.

In the coming decades being female will be synonymous with misery and despair.

Not likely. It’s the incels who are the true experts at making themselves miserable.

Follow me on Twitter.

Send tips to dfutrelle at gmail dot com.

We Hunted the Mammoth relies entirely on readers like you for its survival. If you appreciate our work, please send a few bucks our way! Thanks!

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
1 year ago

I never got why [Braveheart] was so popular.

I don’t really care for it as a movie. But I like how it triggers English nationalists.

There’s like a hundred movies a year with Muslim or Russian baddies, yet these guys are crying over one that’s a quarter of a century old. Persecution complex much.
I’m not usually a stickler for historical accuracy in movies. But there is a line.
I think most people understand the movie 300 isn’t historically accurate, with all its mutants, monsters, and sublime stupidity. But it gets one thing right, the Spartans were full time warriors, they did nothing but fight and train for fights. So they didn’t farm, yet the movie never explains how they got their food.

Was it Manna from the Skies?
Nope, slavery

The Persians had slaves too, but at least they didn’t massacre their slaves to cull their numbers, like the Spartans did annually. The movie portrays Spartans as freedom fighters who saved Athenian democracy, despite Sparta and Athens being archenemies.
I believe Michael Mann was set to do a realistic movie about the Battle of Thermopylae at one point. I would have loved to see that. It is an interesting story, but portraying it as this epochal battle that saved western civilization is just nonsense.
Also, Gods and Generals, Atun-Shei Films review on YouTube is hilarious.

Last edited 1 year ago by Frey
Alan Robertshaw
1 year ago

@ frey

the movie 300 isn’t historically accurate

Indeed. But even ‘in universe’ it isn’t meant to be really. It’s Dilios just telling an inspiring tale to some new recruits before their first battle; so he’s bound to embellish a bit.

One thing with 300 is you can analyse it in so many ways. Like, as you point out, there’s no mention of the Helots; or indeed the Thespians that were also there. So you could probably reference the film in a paper about propaganda maybe.

Last edited 1 year ago by Alan Robertshaw
Bookworm in hijab
Bookworm in hijab
1 year ago

Anyone have any recommendations for good historical movies? My only standards are that they not glory in demeaning women or PoCs, that they are reasonably historically unembarrassing, and…no, wait, that’s it. I trust the WHTM commenters’ standards.

Hey, we should get David to set up a Mammoth Film Reviews thread! ?

1 year ago

Ridicule is a good one, drama and witty insults in the court of Louis the whichever one got guillotined, with protagonists who are trying to actually accomplish something.

GSS ex-noob
GSS ex-noob
1 year ago

Romans didn’t have stirrups, but their bucket saddles meant they could stay on anyway.

But of course actors and stunt persons of today aren’t used to that.

I don’t complain about stirrups in historical Chinese movies, because they invented ’em. Or at least their nomad neighbors/invaders did.

RW’ers often think “300” is true except for the monsters. Seriously, they do.

They don’t wanna hear about:

  • the helots that the Spartans sent out ahead to get massacred first,
  • the fact that the all-professional army of Spartans actually *failed* (they died for nothing, since the Persians sent their main force another way) and the Persians went rampaging through Greece afterwards,
  • that the Athenian navy — who were part-timers like shopkeepers and playwrights — basically saved the Greek city-states from being added to the Persian Empire

Whoa, I didn’t know bullet points happened here! Neat.

You don’t want to watch computer movies with my husband.

1 year ago

But even ‘in universe’ it isn’t meant to be really. It’s Dilios just telling an inspiring tale to some new recruits before their first battle; so he’s bound to embellish a bit.


RW’ers often think “300” is true except for the monsters.

That’s my point, the obviously fantastical elements muddy the waters over the real perversion of history in 300. The ahistorical thesis that we wouldn’t have democracy if the 300 Spartans hadn’t sacrificed themselves for it. It’s like a secular version of Christian Passion Plays.
I would have been less bothered by the absence of the helots if the movie wasn’t constantly harping on the Persians being slavers. It’s also curious how Spartan slavery is ignored while Spartan infanticide is not only depicted, but celebrated. Infanticide is just another reason the Spartans are so Badass. The traitor in the movie is a mutant beast whose father spared his life when he shouldn’t have. 300 is an unabashedly pro-eugenics movie.
The movie’s way of saying ‘no homo’ to the teenage boys cheering for the chiseled Spartans is portraying Xerxes as effeminate. He’s also a wannabe God-King, even though he was most likely a Zoroastrian. Actually, Xerxes I is often identified with the husband of Esther and protector of Jews in the Book of Esther.
Hero in the Bible, villain to conservatives, I suppose that’s par for the course.

Last edited 1 year ago by Frey
Alan Robertshaw
1 year ago

@ frey

Indeed. The “boy lovers” epithet used against the Parthians seems a bit incongruous. Did none of the 300 actually go to Spartan school!

And also, just to be really nerdy, there were actually 301 Spartans present.

ETA: And of course, within a couple of decades the Spartans were in an alliance with the Parthians against Athens.

Last edited 1 year ago by Alan Robertshaw
Redsilkphoenix: Jetpack Vixen, Intergalactic Meani
Redsilkphoenix: Jetpack Vixen, Intergalactic Meani
1 year ago

Wasn’t the 300 movie based on a graphic novel by Frank Miller? That could explain a few things about its historical accuracy right there, I think.

1 year ago

@Alan Robertshaw
The “boy lover” comment was referring to the Athenians, at least in the comic.
As I understand it, while pederasty was perfectly acceptable to the ancient Greeks, gay sex between consenting adults was generally not. Which is… you know… yeah.
The exception being Thebes, home of the fabulous Army of Lovers.
Apparently, Frank Miller’s latest Batman comic is a scathing attack on Trump (but still awful). So at least he never joined the MAGA hats.
And whatever else you may say about Sin City, it portrays Sex Workers as the most honorable faction in Basin City.

Moon Custafer
Moon Custafer
1 year ago

Something that irritated me in the comic-to-movie adaptation of 300: in the book, Leonidas’ queen, Gorgo, only has one scene, but it’s a pretty good one: told by his advisors he can’t join in the efforts to repel the invasion, he says something like “OK, but I feel like taking a short tour of our borders,” and his wife adds: “The roads could be dangerous. I insist you take your bodyguard, husband— all 300 of them.” It’s clear that she’s colluding with him in his excuse.

The movie gives her more screen time, but iirc that particular scene is dropped or the line about the bodyguards is given to somebody else, and a subplot is added in which a treacherous councillor in the pay of the Persians offers to lend support to Leonidas but only in exchange for sex — the first time I watched the scene where Gorgo agrees to this, I thought “she’s setting him up— she’s going to have some witnesses ready to jump out and catch him in the act.” But no, she goes through with it, and then she’s surprised when he goes back on his promise and also slut-shames her in front of the council.

She does stab him in retaliation, but it’s sheer luck that he was carrying the evidence of his treachery (bunch of Persian coins) on his person and it vindicates her.

Sorry, I’ve been irritated for years that the adaptation stripped Gorgo of agency while claiming to improve her role in the story.

1 year ago

Anyone have any recommendations for good historical movies? My only standards are that they not glory in demeaning women or PoCs, that they are reasonably historically unembarrassing, and…no, wait, that’s it. I trust the WHTM commenters’ standards.

Vendetta (1999)
It’s about Italian immigrants to the US in the late 19th century. The Police Chief of New Orleans is murdered, and the newspapers blame it on a conspiracy of something called “Mafia.” A word basically invented by the US media, as it’s not a word used by the actually Cosa Nostra or ‘Ndrangheta.

Fake news leads to…
One of the largest lynchings in US history.
It’s based on a true story. It’s where the Mafiosi stereotype that would haunt Italian-Americans for decades originated.
It’s an HBO movie. But if you don’t have HBO, try checking youtube. It’s from 1999 and stars Christopher Walken

Gangs of New York
Many say it’s one of Scorsese’s weaker movies, I think it’s one of his best.
I’ve been thinking about it a lot recently, especially the part depicting the New York City draft riots. I think the Capital Kalabalik of January 6th was reminiscent of it.
It is full of racism, sexism and general toxic masculinity, but never in a celebratory way.

Here’s a clip for whenever libertarians call for more privatization.

GSS ex-noob
GSS ex-noob
1 year ago


1 year ago

Even if that scenario came true some day, by the premises it would be due to the free choice women make in favor of Chads, however desperate their attempts to form any lasting relationships with them. Nothing – except sexual desire apparently – compels them to pursue Chads and being “unwilling to settle for anything less (and still be happy)”. This is clearly a counterpart of an ubiquitously accepted and celebrated incel axiom that men, out of biological necessity, only desire the youngest and most beautiful of women for underlying reproductive reasons. Evo Psych coming around for you fellas.

%d bloggers like this: